Skip to main content

Full text of "Fish and Wildlife Management Report December 1, 1958"

See other formats


No. 44 December 1, 1953 



FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 
REPORT 



PROVINCE OF ONTARIO 

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS 

Division of Fish and Wildlife 



Hon. J. W. Spooner F. A. MacDougal 

Minister Deputy Minister 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 
No. 44 December 1, 195S 



Page 

Lake Simcoe District Special Beaver Survey, 195$. 

- by J. S. Dorland 1 

Notes on Northern Seals and Whales Along the Hudson Bay 
Coast Between Cape Churchill and Cape Henrietta Maria. 

- by T. M. Nicholl 9 

Additional Information On Sampling Western Region Deer 

Herd. - by R. Boultbee 11 

Combining Age-class Data from Different Sources (Western 

Region Deer Herd) - by R. Boultbee 13 

Information On Bounties On Red Fox Paid By Prince Edward 

County. - by A. T. Cringan 16 

Waterfowl Caught In Muskrat Traps In Patricia West and 
Patricia Central Districts, 1957-5# Season. 

- by D. W. Simkin IS 

Waterfowl Banding, Gogama District, 195B. 

- by H. P. Endress 26 

Waterfowl Production Survey, Gogama District - A 

Comparison Of Three Counting Methods. - by J. A. Macfie 30 

Luther Marsh Game Bag Census, October 4, 1953. 

- by R. W. Hummel and T. M. Nicholl 31 



cont. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 No. 44, December 1, 1953. 



Pape 

Angling Data From the Notebook of a Lake Nipigon 

Outfitter, 1952-57. - by Re A. Ryder 36 

Yellow Pickerel Tagging Programme, Lake Erie District > 

1957. - by J. D» Roseborough 40 

Summary of Fur Returns By Ontario Game Management 

Districts, 1957-53. 45 



(THESE REPORTS ARE FOR INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL 
INFORMATION AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION) 



- 1 - 



lake simcoe district special beaver survey, 195s 

by 
J S, Borland 



During the winter of 1957-5$ and the spring of 195$ the 
third survey of known beaver colonies on patented land was carried 
out by Conservation Officers with the help of cooperative sportsmen 
and farmers o 

All colonies were recorded by township, lot and concession 
and later plotted on a district map. 

On completion of the survey it was found that we again had 
another large increase in beaver colonies throughout the district. 
The records showed that by April 1st, 195$ the district, exclusive 
of Baxter Township, possessed 330 known beaver houses, 149 known 
beaver dams and 35 known beaver bank colonies. This is an increase 
of 263 known beaver colonies over the first survey made in 1952 
which also excluded Baxter Township. This year 9 s survey of Baxter 
Township shows 43 known beaver houses and two known dams. 

Considering, as we have previously done, that the average 
beaver house contains four beaver and the bank colonies two, we now 
have approximately 1600 potential beaver on patented land within 
our district. 

On concluding our plotting of beaver colonies it revealed 
no change in the direction the beaver are moving which is in a 
southwesterly direction across our district since our first recording 
in 1952, which showed beaver mostly in northern parts of Ontario and 
Simcoe Counties. 

Although endeavours have been made to halt the movement of 
beaver southerly towards the agricultural lands of South Simcoe, 
Dufferin and Peel Counties, it was found that these little fur-bearers 
could move faster than the humans who were after them. To-day they 
are becoming well spotted through South Simcoe and Dufferin County 
and are gradually spreading southward along the Credit River in 
Peel County. 

Beaver damage on patented land at the present time is 
confined mostly to the cutting of trees around summer cottages, 
waterways and the flooding of low lying areas. 

During the 1957-5$ season $1 trappers harvested 726 beaver 
off patented land in the district. Although these figures show we 
are harvesting close to half of our known total the number of beaver 
throughout the district continues to rise. This rise however, is 
in proportion to the number of known colonies, as, since 1954-55 
census the percentage of increase in beaver is around 10% whereas 
the percentage of increase in harvest during the same period is 6$% 
only slightly less. It must be noted that although figures show 



- 2 - 

quite an increase in known colonies it is questionable whether or not 
these colonies were not there three or six years ago and are just 
now being located. In areas such as Katchedash, Baxter, Orillia, 
Rama Townships and around Scugog Lake it is the writer 7 s opinion 
that there are considerable numbers of colonies still unknown to us. 

Attached are three maps showing beaver colonies and dams 
recorded during the 1952, 1955 and 195$ surveys which gives a fair 
picture of the southwesterly movement of beaver across our district. 

Also attached are three charts showing figures on - (1) 
Population of beaver. (2) Harvest of beaver. (3) Number of beaver 
trappers. 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/resourcemandec1958onta 



r^» 



-co 

I 
l> 

rH 



p 
o 

t 

p 

CO 
•H 

Q 

CD 
O 

o 

s 

•H 

CO 

CD 



cd 
.-} 

nd 
CD 

■P 
C 
CD 

P 
03 

Oh 
C 

o 



o 
P 
W 



•P 

CO 
CD 
> 

cd 

» 

CD 
•H 

o 

H 
O 

O 

Jh 
CD 
> 

cd 

CD 
PQ 



o 



P 
en 

CD 
> 

CO 
to 

LT\ 

I 
O- 

UP\ 

O 

H 



cd 

p 

O 



CO 
Sh 
CD 
P- 
P. 

cd 



O 



o 
P-. 



s 

•H 

p 

CO 

H 



CD 
> 

cd 

PQ 

M 

cd 
PQ 



CO 



CO 
CD 
CO 

o 



•H 

CO 



o 

Eh 



I I rH I 



vDc^f^O -3" 


vO O 


o 


CV rH n I^O 1 


1 r^CN2 


rH 


rH 




r~\ 



I I r^ I 



r^\ 



t>H O CV 

rH 



o 



CM (J\r-^ 



-4- 



I I rH 1 



rH 



to t>r^O 



I O I r~\ ir\^~ 



rH 



C\2 -4-tOtO C\2 

cv 



tOOvOtOCVOOitOtOvO 

U-N -Cj" OA -d" rH -4" rH CNiO 

rH rH r-\ CN2 



to 


O 


o 


ir\ 


cv 


C\i 


to 







rH rH I I 



C\2 



H |(M I I -j-rH I I | 



to 



I rH CV rH 



-j- 






O oa 



I LT\ C\2 



I HNW ia 



cd 
x 

cd 

in 

Cm 
cd 

cd 
o 



o ^to r- c^to r^ CN2 c^- o 



-4- 



H 

H 
CV 



Cr\ 



ir\ 



<r\ 



u-\ 



t£\ 



G 




o 




.c 




p 




U o 




3 c 




S cd cd 




H rH C 




3d) o 








f£* f^t F^< 









>> 






,Q 0) 






-P tiO 






bO -H >,x3 




cd Jtf 


o ,-c; x: 43 -h 


cd 


cd 5h o 


bO o^s p U 


s 


^ O O 


3 <$ -h ,a 


cd 


cd x: ?h 


O CD o ,C X 



CcJ^EHpQC0PciWr-"3^)C0 







a 








O 




•p 




X) 




p 




CD 




o 




rH 




co 




cd 





Eh 
PcJ 

< 

O 



P 

o 

o 



•H 
*n 
Q) 

Cm 

<+H 

S3 
Q 



cd 
p 
o 

Eh 



O 
•H 
Ih 

cd 
p> 
c 
o 



rH 




1 


cd 


rH 


cd 


p 


CD 


■P 


o 


CD 


o 


Eh 


PL, 


Eh 



-p 

CO 

CD 
> 

U 

03 

oc 
-co 

I 

ON 



O-r^-4-vO CM O 



•CO u-NO-drC 1 

H CM <r\to 



-d 
CM 

cm 



CM O- O rH CM 
rH rH C\ 



cm 


ON 


VO 


vO 


CM 


CN2 




rH 


[*- 



03 

-P 

o 

cy 



0-cACM\0 cm cm 

rH CM 



H O OvO rH u"\ 

CM H rH CM UAO 
rH 



CI 

-co 

CM 



cm o-fr\-j-ir\ 

rlHH -J" 



ON 



■00 



ON 
ON 



CO 

CD 

a 
cd 

Eh 



CM rH rH rH rH -Cf I CM rH CM c^u^-CO 



pa 



CVHHHiA 



CM 



o 



p. 

o 

PL, 



s 

•H 

-p 

CO 



Ot0-4-CNi0J-4-O'CCCNiCvi-d--d-O 

rH rH CM C^-CC OA^vO -t U"\ 



o 
o 
-d- 



\0nD OnQ-OC 

rH CM rH 



vO 


CM 


-co 


NO 


C- 







rH 


vO 

rH 



I 

-d 

1 



U 

CD 
> 

CD 
CO 

M 

a 

05 

m 



U"N| I I HNH I I I CM | UN 



NO 



rH I <ff^N.rH 



ON 






CO 

S 
o3 
P 



ICMlHrH I -d m -d^O tO CM rH ~d 



-co 



I ^O CN. I 0"\ 



CM 
H 



CM 



H 

UA 



p 

O 

o 



p 

03 

o 



CO 

CD 
CO 

o 



•H 

CO 



o 



P 

a 

o 
o 



I CM rH fC I LTNOCV-COr^UArHO 
CN2 rHrH rH H 



03 
•H 



o 

CD +3 



CrH 

O -H 

$h<H 

O CO 
CO -H 



cd 



-p 

CD 
CO 03 

s u 
3 a, 



CD 

p 



43 

CO 

03 

T3 03 
CD -H 

X! rH 



ansraotootJO 

3OCC0CDCDJHCP.H 



O CO >, OH 



a >» p -h 

•H cd 03 ^1 

CO H H M E-i > O g h H h ^ O 



CD 
O 

o 

s 

•H 

CO 



ON 



03 
P 

o 

Eh 



rH -d-f<N I -d" 





>,>> 




fn 


Jh 




3 


3 




X rO 


X 


n: 


a 





•H 


•H 


U rH rH 


2rH H 


a 


•H 

5 


•g 


faflp 


C-H 






hx: 


• 


• 



CM 


CN. 


(T\ 


rH 


-d 





03 
■H 

bJO 

o 

CD 
W !3 W S O 



o 



•H 
CO 



-P 
O 

•H 
J-. 

P 
CO 

•H 

Q 

CD 
O 





O 







^ 


£ 
•H 




rH 


CO 


rH 


CD 




03 


P 


CD 


P 


X 


^} 


O 


03 


03 


^ 


PQ 


rH 

















- 5 - 










C HAITI 


1 II 


- Lake 


Simcoe 


D: 


[strict 


Beaver 


Harvest Su 


rvev 




Yea* 


Known 


Nu 


mber 


Colonies 


Quotas 


Harves 


t B 


eaver Trappers 


1950- 


•51 






_ 






64 




21 




7 


1951- 


■52 






102 






106 




59 




17 


1952- 


•53 






- 






176 




104 




IS 


1953- 


■54 






- 






365 




205 




41 


1954- 


■55 






251 






572 




495 




67 


1955- 


•56 






- 






753 




677 




101 


1956- 


■57 






- 






397 




714 




90 


1957- 


•53 






365 






991 




726 




31 



It will be noted that the total number of trappers during 
1957-58 is listed above as 31, yet on a previous chart it is shown 
as 105. This latter figure of 105 is arrived at when it is totalled 
by townships o To further clarify (a single trapper may trap in more 
than one township) thus a county may show by townships that it had 
a total of 51 trappers trapping yet in actual count records show only 
42. 

CHART III - Beaver Trappers - Lake Simcoe District 
Show i ng number per county per year. 



Dufferin 

Ontario 

Simcoe (including 

Baxter) 
York 



Total 



■H 


C\2 




-4- 




NO 




to 

UA 

i 


1 

O 
tr\ 

ON 
r-\ 


1 

rH 
UA 
ON 
rH 


1 

cv 

ON 
rH 


1 

<r\ 

IX\ 
ON 
rH 


1 

-4- 

ON 
rH 


1 

LfN, 

ir\ 

ON 
rH 


vO 

On 
H 

1 


ON 

rH 








1 


2 


7 


11 


22 


34 


46 


40 


42 


2 


6 


4 


16 


26 


45 


33 


28 


3 


4 


3 


2 


7 


10 


11 
90 


10 


7 


17 


13 


40 


67 


101 


31 



The above figures signify the number of trappers given 
beaver quotas and is the total number of beaver trappers in the 
district by counties. 



6 



LAKE SIMCOE DISTRICT 



• " +\ ~ - -* 




$'^ 



^ 



©> 



^ 



fr 



\o 



Mara 




Plan Showing - 

Beaver Colonies & Dans 

1952 (excluding Baxter Twp.) 

102 colonies, 52 dams. 



o -indicates beaver 
colonies. 

indicates beaver 
dams. 



LAKE SIMCOE DISTRICT 



- 7 - 



/ o Q #% ; 




Plan Ghowinp, - 

Beaver Colonies and Dams 

1955 

2 51 colonies, $6 dams. 



o indicates beaver 
colonies. 

- indicates beaver dams. 



LAKE SIMCOE DISTRICT 
- - A 



/ CO 



^ 



<T 




">0( 



&er 



~ d - 



*oS^ 



^ 



pcoo. 



00 Q 



lolo 



:X to 



vV^ 



<& 



>d> 



s^ 



3 a> 






J» 



*<«* - 



>o o o 



0*^ 



V^v^rW 



«V03 



tftl 



-15 dams 



•6 dams 



0> 



° <K J 



, ^ra e ?S 



-V\ 






0? 



o 



o o 






LAKE 
SII1C0E 






■KP 



&& 



a 






.V 5 



V 



>*$ 



?&< 



14 dams 



«C: 



o o 



Oca 



^ 



tvV 



*& 






^e 



6^ 






•0© 



.o* 



&Vv^ 



^W 



O v eo 



"oo 



"V 



$ 



^ 






V 



X' 



^ \t 



Xj o 



^o 



A, 



lv^ 



r.W 



^e 



N 



sSA 



!*r 



a> 



i*A 9^ 



>r • 



>\o^°_ 



•/•*•/• 



a.* 



k6 






^ 






^ 



^^. 



if 



'o \ oo 



■y 



tf 



v\)^ 



-v 



V.v 



^ 



.tS 



0/1 



;^© 



a> 



o\ o 



o © 



° )S 



a 



^ 



s 



-cV 



,-e 1 






^ 



&£ 



3 dams 

o& 
> 

20 
►^r^dams 



0*^ 



Albion 



^ 



.V 



^ 



tf> 



> 






^*? 



w 



East ACaledon 



M* 



^ 



^ 



.or- 
'Chin- oXto 1 
gaucous; 



1° 



-r 



•Y- 



,6 



0*< 



^ 



r*v 



Eti 



W| 



:oke 



Toronto 



Plan Showing - 

Beaver Colonies and Dams 
1953 (April). 
365 colonies, 151 dams 
(exclusive of Baxter Twp.) 



indicates beaver 
colonies. 

- indicates beaver dams. 



9 - 



NOTES ON NORTHERN SEALS AND WHALES ALONG THE HUDSON BAY 
COAST BETWEEN CAPE CHURCHILL AMD CAPE HENRIETTA MARIA 

by 
T. M. Nicholl 



The following prepared list of observations resulted from 
field work along the Hudson Bay Coast between Cape Churchill and 
Cape Henrietta Maria and the off-shore islands. (The coast refers 
to the coast line between the above mentioned places) . 

Walrus - Odobenus rosmarus 

This species is found occasionally along the coast, but 
is more numerous and a regular summer inhabitant in the Cape 
Henrietta Maria and Bear Island area. 

From observations and Indian reports, it would appear that 
walrus are only rarely seen between Cape Churchill and the Sutton 
River. A few (4 or 5) were observed by the writer off the Owl 
River - Nelson Shoal coastline in July, 1954. These creatures were 
some 20 miles out to sea, and in all probability walrus frequent 
the rocky reef off the Owl River coast. One walrus was seen in tne 
Nelson River estuary in the fall of 1954. Kaska Indians reported 
the occasional walrus on the Pen Islands. 

The Winisk and Attawapiskat Indians have always reported 
numerous walrus in the Cape Henrietta Maria area, but it is felt 
that these reports have been slightly exaggerated. 

In the summer of 1955 > landings were made on Bear Island 
and a few walrus were observed around the rocky shores. One brute 
charged a landing craft much to the horror of its occupants. The 
following year a permanent base was established on the Island. 
Several flights were carried out over the Islands and Cape Henrietta 
Maria during the fall of 1956 and the summer and fall of 1957 > 
though a few walrus were observed at all times no great numbers were 
seen. 

Bearded Seal - Erignathus barbarus 

Perhaps the most common of all species found along the 
coast ; this seal prefers the deep tidal river estuaries and is very 
numerous in the late summer and fall. It is not uncommon to find 
seals 20-30 miles up the larger rivers. 

Ringed Seal - Phoca hispida 

Generally found in the tidal river estuaries. Can be 
observed during the open water season, but more common in the fall. 
A nervous seal and difficult to hunt. 



- 11 - 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SAMPLING THE 
WESTERN REGION DEER HERD 

by 
R. Boultbee 



In March 1957* I wrote you outlining a method of 
estimating the proper size of deer samples,,* The basis was 1,297 
deer one and a half years of age and older collected in a three year 
period c I have done considerable work on the subject since my first 
letter. The basis has been extended to include 2,33$ deer, including 
fawns, over a five year period . These deer were grouped into twenty- 
nine samples averaging SO .62 deer each, the smallest sample being 
fifty-two and the largest one hundred and thirty-two. The results 
apply directly to the Western Region herd but probably are suitable 
for any similar herd. 

I have also found a much improved procedure for working up 
the data. I am appending some notes to show some of its main 
features. Incidentally the procedure is the same as for working up 
the data of the aerial moose census you proposed when you met with 
us on July 22nd. 

The equation for 95 percent confidence limits is. 

Sample size ■ 562.45 

x^ 
where x is the acceptable margin of error. 

The equation for 99 percent confidence limits iss 

Sample size ■ 934°47 
~~x^~ 

As an example, suppose you would like to keep the margin 
of error down to two per cent with 95 per cent confidence limits. 
The necessary sample sj z.e is found by squaring the figure 2 and 
dividing it into 562. 45« The answer is 140. 61 or say 150 deer. The 
95 per cent confidence limits say that the margin of error will 
exceed two per cent only five times in a century. To exceed two per 
cent error only once in a century requires a sample of 9^4*47/4 - 
246.12 or say 250 deer. 

There may be a temptation to accept, say, a five per cent 
margin of error and stop with a sample of 562,45/25 •=> 22.5 deer. 
This temptation must be avoided. In any kind of sampling, when 
numbers are reduced to around 40 or 30, a distortion creeps in and 
becomes rapidly more important with further reductions. It was for 
this reason that I kept the minimum sample in the study at not less 
than 50. 

* See F.& W. Mgt. Report No. 36, Aug 1, 1957. 



- 12 - 



The meaning of "acceptable margin of error" is that the 
individual margins of error of age classes will compensate, when 
added, to not more than the chosen amount . 

It should also be noted that even a very large sample will 
be meaningless unless the animals are aged as they come . When the 
pressure is on there may be temptations to be selective. A 
conscious effort is needed to keep sampling on an impersonal basis. 
If it becomes necessary to pass up some deer it should also be done 
on an as they c ome basis. 



Notes on Statistical Pro cedure 

The twenty-nine samples were classified by age-groups and 
check year groups. This gave 221 sub groups classified in strata of 
age, year and sample size. The standard procedure of eliminating 
variance between strata was applied to the 221 sub groups to give 
the following analysis of variances 



Source of 
Variance 



Sum 



of 
Squares 



Degrees 
Freedom 



Mean 
Squares 



Variance 
Ratio 



Signifi- 
cance 



Between Sub Groups 16,311.36 143 117.57 9-30 
Within Sub Groups 924.00 77 12.00 



Better than 
0.1$ point 



220 



30.62 



The mean square within sub groups is the so-called 
experimental error. 

The average per sub group is 2333/221 = 10.53 deer. 

The average sample is 2333/29 - 30.62 deer. 

The average sample contains 30.62/10.53 = 7.62 age classes. 

The variance of the samples is (7.62) (12.00) - 91.44. 

The standard error of the samples is the square root of 

91.44 which is 9«56. 

The percentage standard error of the samples (9.56) 

(1007/(80.62) , 11..353. 

The percentage variance of the samples is 11.353 

squared which is 140.61. 

The percentage variance of the mean sample is 140.6l/n 

where n is sample size. 

This last expression is the basis of the sample size 
equations. To attach 95 per cent confidence limits the expression 
is multiplied by 4. To attach 99 per cent confidence limits it is 
multiplied by 7*001,. 



- 13 - 

COMBINING AGE-CLASS DATA FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES 
( '//est era Region Deer Herd) 

by 
R. Boultbee 



Prior to 1957 the annual deer hunt check in the Western 
Region was operated at one point, a few miles west of Fort Frances. 
This was a tactically located check point for a large portion of the 
deer shot in the western Region by non-residents. 

In 1957 each of the three Districts in the Region ran its 
own check. Sioux Lookout District ran a check station on the Red 
Lake road. Kenora District operated a check station at Nestor Falls 
and in addition checked twenty-five heads in a locker plant in 
Kenora, Fort Frances contacted hunters in the field. 

Before 1957 all deer going through the single check 
station were treated as constituting a single sample although they 
came from widely separated localities. In 1957 the four district 
checks made it necessary to consider whether or not they could be 
combined to make one large sample. If the proportions of the four 
samples differ by more than the play of chance they should not be 
combined. 

The samples are given in table one. 

TABLE I - 1957 Deer Checks 











A g 


e C 


1 a s s e 


s 






Source 


i 

52 

60 

9 

12 


Ik 
id 

17 

5 

14 


ik 

12 

15 

3 

15 


3i 

25 
23 

3 

19 


kk 

20 

26 

3 

17 


5k 

12 

12 

1 

3 


1 
6 

1 


.Za 

2 
1 
1 
2 


Sk 

i 


Totals 


Red Lake Road 
Nestor Falls 
Kenora Locker 
Fort Frances 


142 

160 

25 

34 



There are several ways of approaching the problem* The 
Nestor Falls sample is the largest and most central. In this paper 
the procedure will be to find if the other samples could have come 
from a population with the same proportions as the Nestor Falls 
sample. 

The best testing method is to use binomial confidence 
limits. These are explained in most good texts on statistics. A 
good reference is "Elementary Medical Statistics" by D. Mainland, 
published by the W. B. Saunders Co. of Philadelphia. The Canadian 
agent is McAinsh and Co., Ltd., Toronto. 

Table Two summarizes the comparisons of fawns with older 
age classes. 



- 14 - 



TABLE II - Significance Tests of Fawn Proportions 



Source 



Red Lake Road 
Nestor Falls 
Kenora Locker 
Fort Frances 



Noc of Fawns Percent of Fawns 99% Confidence Limits 



52 

60 

9 
12 



36.6 
37.5 
36.0 
14.3 



26.6% to 47.5% 

l4ol% to 63. 5% 
6.0% to 26.6% 



Table Two shows that the Red Lake Road sample of 142 deer 
came from a population in which fawns occupy from 26„6 to 47.5 
percent of the herd. This range easily contains the Nestor Falls 
fawn percentage of 37.5. Similarly the locker plant fawn range of 
14.1 percent to 63.5 percent also contains the Nestor Falls fawn 
percentage. The proportion of fawns in Fort Frances District is 
14.3 percent and the upper confidence limit is 26,6 percent. This 
range falls considerably short of containing the proportion of fawns 
at Nestor Falls. 

Table Three summarizes all age classes in a similar manner, 
For each age class all younger age classes were left out of the 
comparison, and as a result, table three compares each age class 
with what is left of its parent group. 

TABLE III - Summary of 99 Percent Confidence Limits (Percentage). 











A 


£ 


e C 1 a 


s s e s 








Source 




1 
? 






1* 






<-2 






Red Lake Road 
Nestor Falls 
Kenora Locker 
Fort Frances 

Source 


26,6 

37.5 

14.1 

6.0 


to 47 

to 63 

to 26 


.5 

.5 
.6 


10.5 to 

20.5 
7.5 to 
9.0 to 


32.3 

65.9 
34,0 

5h 


7.2 to 

lg.l 

3.3 to 
13.0 to 


30.3 

69.4 
42.5 

6J 




Red Lake Road 
Nestor Falls 
Kenora Locker 
Fort Frances 


26 

33 

4 

25 


.0 to 

,ft to 
5 2 to 


59.0 

33.0 
63 2 


34 
57. 

42 


.5 

.3 

.7 


to 77.7 i 

to 97.-7 
to 90.7 


+3.9 to 

S3 .2 
0.2 to 
5.5 to 


97 
99 


.6 0.2 

35. 7 

,3 0.0 

,3 11.1 


to 95- 

to 99. 
to 99. 


.9 

5 

9 



Table Three shows that the samples from the Red Lake Road 
the locker plant and Nestor Falls can be combined. The fawn propor- 
tion in the Fort Frances sample prevents it from being combined. 



- 15 - 

The combination of Samples is given in table four. 
TABLE IV - Pooled Samples 

Age Classes 



Sources i!i2i3iMii6i7Agi Totals 



Sioux Lkt.fc KenoraDist s, 121 40 30 51 49 25 7 4 327 
Fort Frances District 12 14 15 19 17 3 1 2 1 34 



The comparisons show that the fawn proportion in the Fort 
Frances herd is different, but do not give the reason,, Fort Frances 
staff think hunter selectivity is not a factor,. The District 
Biologist has believed for some time that the farm area west of Fort 
Frances is ecologically an island. It is open country and the 
climate is not the same as in the area immediately north. Table 
three indicates that the difference may be an intermittent occurrence. 

The Fort Frances sample was taken in the farm area for the 
most part and the staff say that most of the animals went to the 
locker in Fort Frances. This fact puts the sample more or less in the 
same class as that taken in the locker at Kenora. If this is so 
then method of sampling is not the reason for the difference in 
Fort Frances. The difference seems most likely due to habitat. 

The use of separate checks in each District appears to 
have obtained a more intimate contact with the hunt without incurring 
any serious disadvantage. 



- 16 - 

INFORMATION ON BOUNTIES ON RED FOX PAID 

BY PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY 

by 
A. T. Cringan 



Last July 18th, I obtained from Mr. J. P. Williams, County 
Treasurer, Prince Edward County, certain information relating to 
bounties on Red Fox paid by Prince Edward County - 

No bounty was paid from 1940 until 1948. I did not obtain 
any information for years prior to 1940. 

Bounty has been paid during all, or part of each year 
since 1949 • Amount' of bounty and number of foxes in the County, 
the area of which is 389 square miles, were as follows? 



Year 

1949 
1950 
1951 
1952 
1953 
1954 
1955 
1956 
1957 





Number of 


Bounty 


foxes bountied 


$3.00 

$3.00 then $2,00 

$2.00 then $3«00 


226 


174 


201 


|3.00 


528 


IB3.00 

$3.00 
!j$2.00 


488 


553 


494 


$2.00 


469 


$2.00 


500 to 600 



Number bountied 
per square mile 

0.58 

0.45 
0.52 
1.36 
1.26 
1.42 
1.27 
1.20 
1.29-1.54 



It can be seen that there has been a stabilized production 
of foxes for bounty purposes of between 1.20 and 1.54 foxes per 
square mile per year for the past six years. 

I may be worthwhile to contrast this level of production 
with certain others that have been reported upons 



Source 

This letter 
Switzenberg 
(1951) 



Edwards & 

Cowan (1957) 
Peterson & 

Crichton 



Place 



Years 



1952-57 (Bounty) 
1947-48 (Bounty) 



Production of 
foxes per sq. 
mile per year 

1.20-1.54 

0.31 



Prince Edward County 

Upper Peninsula, 

Michigan 

North half, Lower Pen., 1947-48 (Bounty) O.85 

Michigan 

South half, Lower Pen., 1947-48 (Bounty) 0.45 

Michigan 

boreal forest, BC 20-year average (fur)0.06 



Chapleau Dist 



6-year average (fur) 0.08 



- 17 - 



The following population densities mentioned by 
Trippensee (1953) are worth noting; 



Source 



Trippensee (1953) 
Grinnell et al 

(1937) 
Sheldon (1950) 



Place 



Maine 



California 
New York 



Fox population 
per sq. mile 

about 3 

about 1 
(average of 3 
(maximum of 7 or 8 



A population of at least 4 or 5 foxes per square mile 
must exist in Prince Edward County in order to permit this 
sustained yield of foxes for bounty purposes. Our observations in 
the field confirm that there is indeed a high population in the 
county, although I am unable to suggest the actual population 
density. 

In summary, it may be said that; "There has been a high 
and possibly stable population of Red Foxes in Prince Edward County 
for the past six or seven years. A bounty of $3.00 or $2,00 per fox 
has been paid at most times during the past 9h years. The bounty 
system, in this instance, has apparently been unsuccessful in 
reducing the fox population below its high level". 



- 13 - 

waterfowl caught in muskrat traps in 
Patricia west and patricia central districts, 

1957-53 SEASON 

by 
D. W. Simkin 



It is believed that considerable mortality to waterfowl, 
ducks in particular, is caused by these birds being caught in 
muskrat traps in the spring trapping season. In order to get an 
evaluation of the mortality caused by this factor all trappers inter- 
viewed at the annual spring trappers meetings throughout the Patricias 
were queried with regard to the number and species of waterfowl which 
they accidentally caught in their muskrat traps. This information 
was recorded on a sheet similar to the attached. 

The main purpose of the survey was to determines 

(1) How many waterfowl are trapped in the spring. 

(2) What species are most susceptible to losses in muskrat traps. 

In addition to gaining information on these points, it was 
also found that information of this type is at least potentially 
important in determining the areas of greatest duck concentration. 
Another useful contribution is that the figures gained from the survey 
might be useful in mapping the breeding range of different species 
of ducks in the Patricias. 

Although all of the trappers were not interviewed at these 
meetings, a large proportion of the more active ones were. It is 
believed that the figures obtained from these are fairly representa- 
tive of the situation within each band area. 

How Many Waterfowl Were Trapped in the Spring 

Six hundred and forty-two or approximately 11% of the 
trappers were interviewed in this survey. They trapped an aggregate 
of 1,103 waterfowl. To determine an estimated total kill the 
following system was used. 

Because waterfowl densities are no doubt different from 
one band area to another the incidence of trapped waterfowl will 
also vary. Also, in areas where trapping pressure is greatest more 
ducks will be taken than in an area of low trapping pressure even 
though both areas contain the same number of birds. For this reason, 
it is believed that an estimation of total kill derived by using 
number of muskrat s caught per duck by the interviewed trappers as an 
index and applying this to the rat kill of trappers not interviewed 
will give a reliable estimate of the total kill by trappers. 



- 19 - 

Table I .shows the reported kill by band area as well as 
the estimated kill within each band area. Although 1,543 does not 
seem to be too large a number to take from a population of game birds 
as prolific as waterfowl, it must be recognized that these 1,543 are 
birds from a population which has withstood at least one flight south 
with its barrages of gunfire along the route, as well as all of the 
other strains put on waterfowl during the course of a fall and 
winter (vizs exposure to predation and disease and possible risk 
of starvation on the wintering grounds). 

Hence, if 2/3 of these birds were breeders and there was 
an assumed sex ratio of 60 males to 40 females and each of the 
females raised a brood of three to flying stage by the fall the 
kill of this spring instead of being a reduction of 1,543 as esti- 
mated actually decreased the fall population by 2,773 • 

However, even if these assumptions are correct as far as 
Canadians are concerned the take is of little consequence as the 
trapper is probably the only one who will see these birds north 
of the border. In the areas here discussed waterfowl are fair game 
at any season. As a result the ducks taken in traps merely saved 
the trapper the cost of a shotgun shell. (It is significant that 
not one trapper reported releasing birds caught). 

What Species Were Most Suscepti ble to Tr appin g Losses 

We cannot say with certainty which species are most suscep- 
tible from the data here reported as no estimates of species com- 
position of waterfowl during the spring trapping season are available 
for comparison. However, the high proportion of mallards 69^ (see 
table II) in the kill does indicate that this species is very sus- 
ceptive to trapping losses. As the mallard is the most common pond 
duck nesting in the areas surveyed and is more likely to be encoun- 
tered in muskrat habitat than the common diving ducks of the area, 
it is only natural that they should form a high percent of the loss. 

Another pond duck the green-winged teal ranked second in 
numbers taken in traps. This bird is also a common nester in much 
of the area and in numbers is second only to the mallard among the 
dabblers. 

Curiously enough the lesser scaup ranked third. This diver 
is not known to be too common as a nesting species in the areas in 
which it was trapped in the spring. However, it could very easily 
be that the breeding range of the lesser scaup extends farther east- 
ward than writers such as Kortright (1942) have described and, in 
reality, is as common a breeder as its incidence in rat traps in the 
Patricias would seem to indicate. 

It was interesting also to find that Canada geese are not 
immune to rat trap losses. The five taken in the Fort Severn band 
area were trapped by one trapper who strangely enough caught nothing 
but the five honkers in his traps. 



- 20 - 

Distribution of Waterfowl 

Using the ratio of rats trapped per waterfowl as an index 
of waterfowl concentration in band areas the distribution is as 
shown in diagrams I and II. 

Distribution of Breeding Ducks - See Table II 

Undoubtedly the mallard is the most important breeding 
duck in the Patricias comprising 69% of the total number of ducks 
trapped last spring. The only band area which reported more birds 
of a species other than mallard trapped was Fort Severn, where pin- 
tails formed the bulk of the kill. This is consistent with my own 
observations last August when I found more pintails very common in 
the coastal area about Goose Creek 10 miles southeast of Fort Severn. 

The lesser scaup was a species frequently caught through- 
out the region, however, I do not believe that the v/ide distribution 
of this species as indicated by trapped birds is indicative of its 
breeding distribution, Possibly in some of the areas a fair number 
of lesser scaup do breed. 

It is felt that if this type of survey were carried out 
each spring trends in waterfowl population could be determined. 
Presumably when we get to the point of managing our waterfowl crops 
intensively or when the kill by rat trappers is deemed to be exces- 
sive preventive measures could be taken to cut down the loss from 
this source. However, it appears that this situation is far in the 
future yet and the condition now is anything but critical. 






I 

CD U 
p CD 
Cd -P 

6 rt 

•H ^ rH 
+3 £ 

CO c M O 



I 

p, 

k CD 



WOtHh & 



0) 

Ph 



CO 

p 
co 
C£ Eh Ph 



I 

In 

1) 



CO £h p £ 

h G) CO O 



vO O -4 -4 O un <v> >■/> <vn rH -4 
c*AO.rH OCV 4rf\H CVA 






^AiAOOOtOOH 
-4" -4^0 CV rH O-rH 

C\J rH <M rH 



to 


c^ 


o- 


-4 


rH 


U"\ 




H 



OnvO -4" O- O vO fr> O ^«D to 
to H to OJ CV o^ co\f> i— t O- -4 



rH o o r^-ovo o ^ 

co-^C^coroHCNjirN 



I 

M 

CD 

p 



I 
u 

H O 



73 
CD 
P 
P. 



£ Ph-CS cd 
CO O CD Sh 
^ ChCeJ p e-i 



0f>4-4HcAn4^0 4 
coOi rH ia«0 4r^H(n-4 

rH 



-4 



"-O rv\ C\2 tO tO CM r>- iH 

rH CM VO rH <T\ IT\ rH 

CN rH rH 



vO 


ro 


cv 


O 


vO 


H 




rH 



T5 M 

CD CD I 73 

Ph PhSh tt) 

PhPhCd £ 

CO c0 p CD 
<h ^ fi -H 



ftJrHEHH> 



(MvO-^CMOCMr-IO-rH UAtO 
-4rHLO-4-co l -''N.-<i-CM nocv 

iH 



-4 to O- H -4 cm r>- O 
ONrlH^O fTNvO O- CM 
H 



I 



co 
o 

•H 

P 

CO 

H -H 

CM p 

CO 

I P 

co 

pJ 

CO 

u 

Eh 

P 
CO 

u 

CO 

I 

C 
H 

T3 

CD 
P 
P 

cO 

in 
E-i 



O 
Ch 

CD 
P 

CO 



H-H 

m 
e-< 





CO 






■PTJt) 




CO 


cd d 


Ha 


PucO 


cO 




PhO-I 


P 


o 


cO - 


o 


o 


?H J>, 


Eh 


f^S 


fHPQ 



Ch 




CD 


TJ 


O 




P, 1 


CD 




CO 


P.CD 


P 





p 


CO Oh 


?H 


c 


cd 


Sh 


O 


S CUE-i e8 


P 



ch 
O 



CO 

U 

CD I 73 

(XU CD 

Ph<D £ 

CO p CD 

EhJH > 



cd 

a: 

Ih 

< 

c 

cO 

pq 



rH t>-t>-vO O O IXMNtO ro 
HtNO-tt^H OOtO CM On 
O4HH^\DOt0HC^H 
CM H »-ArH rH rH <M 



C^-^AO-CVtoOo^Otoc^r^ 

Ninr>0\U-\iAOc\n40N 
N4HO^^HHOHH 

H rH -4" rH rH rH tC LTN OJ 



NtocNjc^iAotoHvoor- 

-4CM<MtOtTvcoCMrOCMc'N. 



cr 


CO 






(h 


CD CO 






P 


M 2 






G 


cO O 






CD 


■H" £ ,CJ 




0) 


O 


Sh Jh 




<& X CO 




p CD fD CD CD 




o cO ^ % 


cO 


. 2 > Png > 


c 


•H^W) cd 


■H 


o a> o % td 


•H 


a ?h c • p 


O 


Shcop: o o 


Aj 


O CD 2 bfip 


•H 


H t3CQ 


CO 


^H^i-H CO 


H 


p p CO 


*H 


co x co ^.; B 


P 


U0!h fn jh faO cO 


co o c o cd 


a 


•H 3 O cd -H 


CD 


CO -H CO cd rC 


Ph 


■ jn £h Ph ,_q PQ 


PQ fed fr, O CO CO 



r-l 
O 

H 



CV 



-4iHtxDOv0-4OCV 
CMAiA C^vO to to O 
c^wO t> Oi O -4" r^\0 
rH vO vO c^\ <r\ 



CM 


t> 


H 


cv 


r^ 


cv 


r^ 


H 


C\2 


-4 



to 

C^N 



EH 

O 

Eh 



P 
CO 

p^ 

IBS 

cO 
•H 
O 
•H 

H 

P 

cd 
ft, 



tOOCV-4u^ONCVCNi 
vOCV-4-ONOO^O 
-4--4c^Ht>-OrHvO 
~4vO CV rH 



C\2 


tr\ 


to 


O 


O 


i-^ 


U^, 


r-l 


H 


ex\ 



UA-4t>c\irH-4-UAC\2 
CV C^O CV (T\r-1 CV 

rH 



o 


Cvi 


vO 


-4 


CV 


vD 







CO 






Ti 


CD 




•H ?h 


^J 




Ph CD 


cO 




cdJsJ 


H 




Cc! CJ 
PJ 


►» 




Ti co 


r d 




C 


C 


tl 


CO XJ CD 


cO 


3 


in CD^ 


CD rH CO ^ O Ch CO 


^ ^ 


•H 


\.H 


cd CD c# 


fat) <D 73 


i-J CO 


CH Cfl 


Ch 


(0 


P cd C 


p O CD 


JSh 


P H ^ 


CO Cj CD 


CD 


•H CO O 


O H Q CL, H MD^ 



0) 

cd 



Eh 
O 
Eh 



Hi 

<U 

O 

Eh 

Cci 

a 



en 
CO 



M 

P 



3 
Cfl 

o 

to 
o 

•H 
O 

C) 

CO 

■S 

c 

Cm 
Sh 
CD 

P 



i 

M 
M 



-at 



Canada Goose 



Unidentified 



Miscellaneous 

# 

Amer. Mers. 



Bufflehead 
Less. Scaup 

Amer. Gold. Eye 

Baldpate 
Black 

B. W. Teal 

G. W. Teal 

Pintail 

Mallard 



U"\ I rH I 



J I I I I CT\ 



I I I I I 



CM I I 



rH 

cd 
-p 


O 

cd 

•H 

o 

•H 

P 
cfl 



I I I I HH I I I I I 



I I I I I CM I CM I I 



I H I I O I I 1 I I I 



-4 I I H'flOHfA I HN I 



I I I I I I I I I I I 



I I I I r-t I H I t I I 



I I I cr\ | | | | | | | 



r^ I IN IH I I I I I 



C^f^ | -4-u^o I OA I CM rH 
rH rH 



I ^ I H-4- I I I I I I I O 



0\LrN-4-cV0M>t>-rHOv0(^ 
rH rHr^^CMCMrHCMCM 

rH 










en 






^ 3 






cd O 






JC JC 







u u 




a m cr5 


+3 




o cj^ £ 


3 > P-,C > 


c 


•H h3 bC cri 


O CD O ? Cti 


•H 


£ !m O P 


^OTXOO) 


M 


O 2 bOP 


Eh t! PQ 


CO 


.£> rH ,0 -H cd 


4J-P to 


in 


cd ^ cd x: E 


bO Sh ?-. C bO cd 


oi u C uo3 


•H O O CC5 -H 





cd -H CO cd ^ 


pQfi H fk Hl .Jl l X)CX)^pL,OCOCO 



CM 



IT\ 



-4 



O 



cm 



OA 



MD 



rH 

-4 



-4" 



=cj 

O 

E-i 



Cti 

•H 
O 

•r! 
!m 

P 

P-. 



I I I I I I I I 



I I U"\{>- I I I I 



I I -4- I I I I I 



I I I I I I I I 



I ICA I I I IA I 



I I c^vO c^ u-nvO I 



CV I OO I ^ I I 

rH CM 



I I I I I I I I 



I I I I I I I I 



I I 1 I I I I I 



I I tX) J rH CM O I 

rH rH 



I I I I I I I I 



1 1 


1 c^ 1 


1 CM 

1 -oo 


O- 1 


1 -4 


vO | 


I 1 


m | 


| tc 


CM | 

rH 


1 ^ 
1 <*> 


C*\ 1 

vO 1 


1 MD 

1 -4 


vO 1 
-4| 


| 1 


CM | 


| 1 


r^v | 




vO | 


1 H 
1 (^ 


CV 1 


1 1 


o 1 

CM J 



CA OA OvO ^t U~\ rH rH 


CV 


UA 


rH CVOH -40 rH 


CM 


^O 


rH rH rH 


-4" 


O- 



CO 



cd 
r-3 



CO 
•H 

a, 



tj 



TJ 

C S cd 
en ? u 

rH CO ^ O 

cd c£$ bO 
h^CO fid 
^ cd P 
p o 0) £4 .p 
cd cd -H 



U 



M 

o 

2 

CO 

TJ 
X 

cd« 

rH*\.* 

tj cd 

TJ Gh-q 

C cd 

3rHTJ 

O CO 
CScH C£ 





rH" 




<t! 




Eh 




O 




Eh 


(-P 


Q 


<u 


S 


Eh 


■< 


o 


tf 


Eh 


O 





CO 

G 

cd 
bO 
U 

2 

TJ 



T! 
O 
O 

& 

rH 
TJ 

cd 

o 

o 

bO 

a 

•H 

h 

rH 



Si 


p 

O 
o 

CO 

<H 

rH 
^J 

CO 

-4- 
CO 



TJ 

rH 
O 

c 



! 



- 23 - 

DIAGRAM I - Patricia Central District 



Plan Showing Waterfowl 
Concentrations as Indicated 
By Rat Trap Losses. 

E^S High 1-20 Rats/Bird. 
UDEJ Med. 21-50 Rats/Bird. 
Low 51 + Rats/Bird. 




- 2k 
DIAGRAM II - Patric ia West Distric, 



Plan Showing Waterfowl 
Concentrations As Indicated 
By Rat Trap Losses. 

ESSSS8 High 1-20 Rats/Bird 
fTTTTTTTT Med. 21-50 Rats/Bird 
|==1 Low 50+ Rats/Bird 




- 25 - 
Ducks Accidentally Taken in Muskrat Traps 

Name 



Address 



1. How many ducks did you catch this year 

2. How many were you able to release 



3 . What kind were the ducks you caught 

4. Trapline Area number 



5. Did you catch any banded ducks 



Please complete this form whether you caught 
any ducks or not. It is as important to us 
to know how many trappers did not catch 
ducks as did. 

This information will be treated as strictly 
confidential and will be used for waterfowl 
management purposes only. 



- 26 - 



WATERFOWL BANDING, GOGAI-1A DISTRICT, 195# 

by 
H. P. Endress 



This year, duck banding was again carried out on the upper 
reaches of the Grassy River, continuing the program that began in 
1956o This year ? s operation was carried out by members of the . 
Gogama Fish and Wildlife staff. 

Trap sites were first baited on August 7 and B. The sites 
were re-visited on September 15? and traps were partially erected 
so that ducks coming to the bait would become accustomed to them. 
During the latter visit about 3 5 ducks were flushed in the six-mile 
long trapping zone. On August IB, the crew set up residence at 
Washagami Lake and the closing of traps commenced. The table below 
compares the duration and success of banding operations for each of 
the three years the station has been in existence. 



1956 
1957 
1953 



Banding 
Commenced 

Aug. 23 
Aug. 16 
Aug. 19 



Banding 
Ceased 

Sept. 15 
Sept. 6 
Sept. 11 



Total 

Days 

24 
22 
24 



Total Ducks 
Banded 

462 
206 
235 



Again, trapping success fluctuated markedly from day to 
day (see the accompanying graph) for no apparent reason. Weather 
throughout the period was generally cloudy and unseasonably cool. 
Bait acceptance at two of the six traps did not take place until 
midway in the period. 

No casualties whatever occurred this year. In the two 
previous years a few ducks were lost to predators and injuries 
suffered in trying to escape from traps. 



It is evident that 
for we do not catch ducks in 
ratio. In 1957 the ratio of 
black ducks trapped was I.64 
adults that raised the juveni 
of an earlier crop that succe 
along the flyway, so perhaps 
cages. Of 193 blacks trapped 
which we had banded in 1956) 
adults (two carried 1957 band 



corn-baited wire traps are selective, 
anything like a natural adults juvenile 
adult females to juveniles among the 
and this year 9 s ratio was ls25» The 
les that enter our traps were the members 
eded in evading thousands of gunners 
they are also too wary to enter wire 

in 1957 only five were adults (one of 
and of 269 trapped this year 20 were 
s) . 



In 1956 trapping ceased 11 days before the hunting season 
opened and in 1957 the margin was reduced to nine days. This year, 
the trapping period was extended still further, the last trap being 
dismantled four days before the season opened. Any bait that 



- 27 - 



remained was trampled into the mud and the sites were then visited 
periodically during the next four days. The trap sites appeared to 
lose their attractiveness to ducks as soon as baiting ceased, perhaps 
because of the good crop of wild rice that was then at its peak. 
During the first two days of the hunting season, the seven hunters 
who hunted in the general area of the banding station shot 14 black 
ducks, of which three carried bands. As long as hunting pressure in 
the upper eight miles of the Grassy River continues to be as light 
as it has been to date, it apparently will be safe to operate a 
banding station to within a few days of the opening of the hunting 
season. 



Daily Record of Ducks Trapped 







New 
6 




Rep 


eats 




Daily Total 


Aug. 19 


2 


(banded 1957) 


8 


20 




11 










11 


21 




13 










13 


22 




3 










3 


23 




9 


3 








12 


24 




12 


3 








15 


25 




2 


1 








3 


26 




12 


6 








18 


27 




15 


4 








19 


28 




12 


10 








22 


29 




17 


6 








23 


30 




15 


16 








31 


31 




10 


15 








25 


Sept. 1 




7 


13 








20 


2 




29 


11 








40 


3 




23 


18 








41 


4 




9 


7 








16 


5 




24 


30 








54 


6 




11 


18 








29 


7 




8 


18 








26 


6 




20 


20 








40 


9 




9 


12 








21 


10 




6 


14 








20 


11 


2 

285 

3ies 


3 








5 




230 








515 


Total bv Spec 




1 Green-winged 


Teal 


2 Blu 


e-winged 


Teal 




2 Hooded Mer£ 


^ansers 


269 Blacks 






11 Mallards 



Species Taken By Age and Sex 



Black Duck 
Mallard 

Green-winged Teal 
Blue-winged Teal 
Hooded Merganser 



- 28 - 



Adult 


Adult 


Immature 


Immature 


Male 


Female 
10 


Male 


Female 


10* 


130 


121 


1 


2 


1 


7 








1 











1 


1 








1 


1 



* including two carrying 1957 bands. 

















- 29 


- 
















41 
39 

3S 

37 

36 

35 


- 












Dai: 


Ly Re 


:ord of Banding! 


3 
















| 


(Ji'a 
195 


:>yy R, 
S-5d. 


ivui' Jandiiig 3t< 


iLiull 
















1 

! 

i 

i 










1956 








34 
33 
32 

31 
30 
29 
2S 

27 

26 

25 
24 

23 
07 
























1957 

195^ v 


_<_<>. 
















1 














\ 




















1, 




J 


1 1 


\ 












1 








.\ 

\ 




/ 








n 

CD 
















• "T 

\ 

• 




/ 








CO 
















[ I 
[ 

• 


IN 


/ 








21 
20 
19 
IS 

17 
16 


CO 
•H 






\ 










I 




t 


J 






GO ' 

a) ' 

?5' r 






': 






A 






■ 


\ 


I t 

to 

1 i 








Q, . 

51 » 






\ 






k 








I 


A 


• 






15 
14 
13 
12 
11 
10 


0) 






; 






H 

// 


\/ 


• 


] » 
1 * 


\ 






/ 


i 




Sil 


• J 

# j 






1 » 

1 

» 


•V 


l 

1 


1 ' • 


• 1 


i! 




V 


♦ 


i 
1 


/ '. 


K 


• 


i ■ • 

• 


• 




i 

* 1 




.1 


; i 






9 
8 

7 
6 




/ 

• 




I 


[v.-i 




• 
• 


\ 

« ' 


/ 


« 


» ■ 

• \ 

• 


« 


• 






/ 

f 

/ 


\ 


• 

/ 


• 1 

» f 




» 

4 
1 


\ 


u 




• 




\ 
i 

\ 




5 
4 
3 
2 

1 






\ 

i 








< 
« 








i 

• 




» 

\ 










• 


• 

• 






• 
i 


» 
• 


• 
# 






E 

\ 

< 














Da 


be of 


Band 


• 

Lng 


• 











16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2g 29 30 31 y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 3D 11 12 



- 30 - 

WATERFOWL PRODUCTION SURVEY, GOGAMA DISTRICT 
A COMPARISON OF THREE COUNTING METHODS., 

by 
Jo A. Macfie 



Summer waterfowl brood counts in the Gogama District have 
been largely unsuccessful^ too few broods were found for the results 
to be significant. Previous surveys were done from power driven 
boats. This year, three methods of travel, paddle canoe, aircraft, 
and power driven boat, were employed on the same survey area on 
consecutive days in order to determine whether effectiveness could 
be increased by a change in technique. 

The survey area dealt with here is a 17 mile stretch of 
the Grassy River, between Grassy and Canoeshed Lakes. It is largely 
a slow moving, marsh-bordered stream of the type generally favored 
by waterfowl for nesting, and it is a fall concentration area for 
ducks. The survey by power boat was carried out on July 2nd, the 
route was then retraced by paddle canoe on July 3rd and the aerial 
survey was carried out on July 4th. The following table gives the 
duck counts for each method; 





Incomplete 
Broods 


Number 

5 
4 
2 


Total Ducklings 

30 

27 

9 


Other 
Ducks 


Power boat 
Paddle canoe 
Aircraft 




3 




12 

7 

12 


Results 











Although we found more broods while paddling (probably due 
to the fact that the slower pace allowed a closer inspection of the 
marshes) three of them were incomplete broods or only broody females 
The net difference between the two types of survey by water craft 
was in favor of the power boat. The aircraft ranked a poor third. 



Several factor 
results. The extensive 
particularly the blacks, 
Sport fishermen use the 
several boats were trave 
reducing observations, 
waterway as a production 
represent the production 
country than was suppose 



s may contribute to these disappointing 
sedge marshes probably conceal many ducks, 

the species in which we are most interested, 
river extensively during the summer, and 
lling it during every survey, probably 
Finally, we might have overestimated this 
area. The birds seen there in the fall may 
of a larger section of the surrounding 
d. 



- 31 - 



LUTHER MARSH GAME BAG CENSUS, OCTOBER 4, 1953 

by 
R. Wo Hummel and T u M* Nicholl 



Despite unusually low water, and reported scarcity of ducks 
the opening day of the duck season at Luther Marsh was one of the 
most successful since its establishment as a water holding area for 
the Grand River, 

It was not without some trepidation that our patrol staff 
of 33 men converged on the marsh at 5» 30 a.m. Daylight Saving Time 
on opening day. We remembered last year when shooting commenced 
long before the opening hour and continued uncontrolled. 

Very few hunters entered the marsh this year without first 
having been checked by a patrol officer - handed a list of instruc- 
tions (until they ran out) , and urged to co-operate to make a good 
shoot for all. Almost without exception, hunters were pleased to 
see us. They wanted a controlled shoot. 

Except for a very few itchy trigger fingers, most excellent 
co-operation was given us, and it was not until between lis 45 and 
12s 00 noon Standard time that shooting really opened up. This is 
not perfection, and we will strive to better this mark next year. 
We are satisfied that 95% of our hunters at least are good sportsmen, 
and do not mind being regimented if it means controlling remaining 
hunters who cannot curb their patience. 

Firing flares at the closing hour was looked upon with 
favour. Shooting then stopped, except for some who "emptied their 
guns", and others who were unable to see the flare from their position, 

We certainly appreciated the patience of hunters coming 
through our checking stations after the shoot. We were given valuable 
assistance by students from the Wildlife Management Course, Ontario 
Agricultural College, Guelph. 

The following data were collected on October 4th, 1958, 
after the opening day of the duck season in Luther Marsh: 



- 32 - 






TABLE I - Composition of Bag 



Species 


Male 
90 


Female 
90 


Others 
206 


Total 
336 


Percent 


of Total Kill 


Black 


25»21 


Mallard 


123 


192 




172 


492 




32.13 


Green-winged Teal 


61 


120 




34 


265 




17.30 


Blue-winged Teal 


15 


43 




67 


130 




3.49 


Redhead 


7 


6 




3 


21 




1.37 


Lesser Scaup 


5 


20 




4 


29 




1.39 


Gadwall 


9 


13 




5 


32 




2.09 


Pintail 


7 


21 




20 


43 




3.13 


Shoveler 


1 


2 






3 




.19 


Wood Duck 


3 


1 




2 


6 




.39 


Ring-necked Duck 


1 


3 




10 


13 




.34 


Baldpate 


2 


6 




7 


15 




.97 


Canvasback 








2 


2 




.13 


Bufflehead 








1 


1 




.06 


Ruddy 








6 


6 




.39 


Hooded Merganser 








13 


13 




. 84 


R. B. Merganser 








1 


1 




.06 


Coots 








67 


67 




4.37 


Snipe 


Success 






3 


3 




.19 


TABLE II - Hunter 








Hunters 


Ducks 


Part 


ies 


Using 


Ducks 


Ducks 


Hunter 


Year Checked ( 


Checked 
253 




Dogs 




Lost 
127 


Found 
4 


Success 


1953 207 




11 




1.2 


1954 729 


494 




22 




127 


23 


.67 


1955 639 


501 




16 




173 


3 


.73 


1956 539 


613 




17 




132 


3 


1.04 


1957 426 


246 




15 




69 


4 


.53 


1953 913 


1533 
3645 

atio Ob 5 




17 




342 
1025 


16 


1.67 


TOTAL 3 503 




93 




53 


5.94-6= .99 


TABLE III - Sex R< 


served 








Species 








Male 
90 






Female 


Black 


90 


Mallard 








123 






192 


Green-winged Teal 








61 






120 


Blue-winged Teal 








15 






43 


Pintail 








7 






21 


Lesser Scaup 








5 






20 


Gadwall 








9 






13 



- 33 - 



TABLE IV - Age Ratio Observed in. 3,5.6 Ducks Checked 







Adult 


Juvenile 


Adult 


Juvenile 






Species 




Male 
29 


Male 


Female 
25 


Female 
13 


Adult 
54 


Juvenile 


Black 




15 


25 


Mallard 




37 


5 


37 


IS 


74 


23 


Green-winged 


Teal 


lg 


10 


34 


14 


52 


24 


Blue-winged 


Teal 


2 


4 


6 


17 


8 


21 


Scaup 




1 


4 


5 


5 


6 


9 


Gadwall 




4 


5 


6 


6 


10 


11 


Pintail 




3 




10 


3 


13 


3 


Baldpabe 




1 








1 




Wood Duck 




3 




1 




4 




Ring-necked 


Duck 


1 






3 


1 


3 


Shoveler 








1 


1 


1 


1 











r- IpaOOnpaOn O-On OvO lAr^r^-OCT- 












CV rH oa -4 rH pa O- -4 CA oa OOtOHnHH 


• 










t3 






to 




iACVM»(^ On tC <H CV -4 


P CD 






ir\ 




CV OPrH 


cO >, 













CO & O 






<H 






•H P rH 








• 


nO CV ua O to vO UAcNrHvO CV <H -4 CV £>- pa p-n, 


1 CO £U 








O 


tOOvOrp~4 HHCV pa rH nO 


rH CD P £ 








s 


o-n.-4-CV rH 


CO O rH cO CD 










CD UN CO CD 










rH O £ PP 










• CD PhO 










73 O ^H cd p 








^ 


(Vnf^O -4- rH rH OA PA rH CV 


1 a 






O- 


CV CV rH CV 


to p 73 73 co 






UA 






P CD P rH -H 






O 


• 




•H CD CO P 






rH 


o 


ir\0-tO -4rH rH pa ca £> t> Hm -4 


£ £ OP 








S5 


UA UA CV rH UA 


1 p CO £ O 










P CD CD -H 










CD ,Q rH P P 










CD CO rH CO 










P S S P 










UACV PA-4uArH OnO -4 O to to -4rH[>- 


O O -H 








^ 


OCO*»*00**» • o • « 


T3 73 • S 




__£ 




vO^\OOnNHHH UA 


CO CD CD CD CO 




CO 


MD 




CV CNi rH rH 


CD CD bfl N X 




P 


UP, 






rH P P -H CD 




P 


ON 






CO <H -H CO 




f^-t 


rH 


• 


n^O -4CV paCV O OnvO ua ua p^r-iip, 


£ 5 co 








o 


vO ua O nO CV rH rH rH pa 


CD <H | O P 




p 




S 


H rH rH 


Ch O P P P 




CD 






CD CO 




,P 






73 CD CD CO 




-P 






P CD P CO CD 




P 






CO P bfi X! 




*1 






ua UA C*- rH UA UA paOOnua On 


5JD (DP 








\^ 


oaeoat o> i o o • 


CO CD 73 H 


• 


! 




VO t> O tO rH CV CV CA rH rH rH 


CD 73 (D.Qtn 






ir\ 




CV rH CV rH 


rH X CO -H 


-* 


73 


LP 






CO rH CD p 


O 


o 






S CO O >, 


oa 


•H 


rH 


c 


VO -4 rH to tTN rH t> O On pa O 


rP -H rH 


5, 


fn 




o 


CPOONrHrHrHrH rH 


CD P >,P rH 


CD 




25 


rH rH 


& >H rH CO CO 




(^ 






p £ rH CD -H 

3 P o 




P 






P .—. <H CT CD 




cO 






CD ~4 CD P < 




CD 






OC^- O r^-4-vO -4CVtO -4" -4 to On -4 


CD » P CD CO 




>H 






o«tor*o*«tt > o 9 ♦ o 


& -4 CO P CD 








"^•s 


ONOONLfA rH rH PA CV 


P !) O CO 




CD 


-4 




rH CV CV rH 


CDCV •» 




> 


UA 






,Q X ^ W W 




•H 


ON 






— O CD CD 




Ph 


rH 


• 


On pa to ua CV to CV H On I>- CV -4 -4 CV 


O rH P 








O 


-4UA-4CV <H vO 


•HP CD per 




P 




s 


H rH 


P> CO rH S «H 




o 






cO CD p, cO P 




Ph 






P .p EH to ,p 

cO O 




g 






X CD CO CD CD 




o 




^■^o 


LTN[>-tOONCV ON 


CD P X P 




•H 




^ 


PArH H rH 


CO CO O P 




-p 


ca 






P Xi to 




•H 


UA 






a) crp * p 




CO 


ON 


* 


to -4CNONO On 


,P CO +J -H 




O 


rH 


o 


-40-p-NOrH O 


P * P txO 




p 






rH 


•H -4 cO CO 




3 






*rP O 




o 






rp o CD -H p 




o 






rH Cm -H 
CD bD,P -H 




CO 




rH 


rH P CO P P 




CD 




COrH <— ^ 


,P -H E-> bO O 




■H 




o) co a o 


CO CO -HP 




O 




E-i CD p 23 


-p p p CO P 




CD 




rH cO Q 


•H CD 




P 


CO 


73 O 


P * -P 




CO 


CD 


CD 73 CO 73 


|H P P O P 






•H 


J* hfl CD —-CD 73 J*i 


P P P CO 




1 


O 


O p h£» ^ ^ CD CO P O 


P JD 






CD 


p -HP rHCDO O >■, CPCDcrS P 


O CO CO 






£ 


P Ti ^ -H H r HP>CD73pCDrH,PC0 r P CD 
P S £ -H drt^niQSHfflStQ rH 


•H •»• -H »H 
C+H— . 




M 




^i co p s co >>,o ai d) cd co h co co cdcd 


•H UAON CD 




»-3 




OH CD CD P 73 CD 73 bfl.p 73 73 £ <H W) > P > Ph. 


P CV -4 P 




PQ 




OiHaJ^CTJ^HaTiOHTJCH^ClOO-H 


bJOO • 0) 




<* 




rHcOPrH-HprHcO-HCDOOcOpCDcOO.PP 


•H »tO ^ 




fH 






mSoma.ftifflmii^^oomSoococoj 


CO O CV P 



- 35 - 

TABLE VI - Observed Age Ratio 

1957 


1958 


Species Adult % Juvenile 


Adult ; Juvenile 


Black 27.12 
Mallard 39.12 
Blue-winged Teal 5.9 


54.25 

74.23 

8.21 



In the above table, the comparison between 1957 and 1958 
kills of Black, Mallard and Blue-winged Teal is recorded. On such 
a small sample, much is questionable, since some difficulty may 
have been experienced in the sexing of black ducks and immature teal, 
In assuming the figures are significant, the lack or absence of 
immature Mallards and Black ducks is very noticeable, though in the 
Blue-winged Teal, the ratio of adult to juvenile is as expected. 



- 36 - 



ANGLING DATA FROM THE NOTEBOOK OF 
A LAKE NIPIGON OUTFITTER, 1952-57 



R, 



by 
A, Ryder 



In 1952 a number of notebooks were circulated among several 
outfitters on Lake Nipigon, with the intent that they should record 
the catches made by their angling parties. Unfortunately, only 
one man conscientiously kept an accurate account of all fish captured 
by angling parties outfitted by him. The following data were obtained 
from six years of records found in his notebook. 



Over the six-year perio 
of 131 angling parties consisting 
These anglers were chiefly non-re 
all, four species were recorded, 
catches (pike and pickerel), the 
(speckled trout and lake trout), 
occasionally pickerel, were the p 
being taken incidentally to these 
for the six year period are shown 



d, 1952 to 1957 inclusive, a total 

of 749 anglers were outfitted, 
sidents seeking trophy fish. In 
two occurring frequently in the 
other two occurring only rarely 

It is believed that pike, and 
rincipal species sought, the trout 
Combined data from the fishery 
in Table 1. 



Pike dominated the catch both in numbers and weight. The 
fact that the average pike weight was £.9 pounds seems to verify 
the idea that primarily trophy fish were sought. A total of more 
than eighteen tons of pike were captured over the six-year period. 

TABLE I - Angling Success for a Six-year Period On Lake Nipigon, 
1952-1957. 



Number of Anglers 

Number of Angler- days 

Average Number of Days Per Party 

Average Number of Anglers Per Party 

Number of Pike 

Total Weight of Pike 

Average Weight of Pike 

Number of Pike Per Angler-Day 

Number of Pickerel 

Total Weight of Pickerel 

Average Weight of Pickerel 

Number of Pickerel Per Angler-Day 

Number of Speckled Trout ....*•.. 

Number of Lake Trout 

Percentage of Anglers 'With Limit Catches of Pike 

Percentage of Anglers With Limit Catches of Pickerel 



.0.0..1OC..0.....0S 

eeoeoa..o.oecr 
• so. 

'ty . 

ca*...o*oo.oeo... 
ec.o.*.e....9.r.c 
e«..o.o.aee.e.c 
e. 0.0. 00 
.c..aa.aaoa..c 

0...C.9OS.0.O 



o. ....... 



0O0....0.0.00 
O.O.O...00. 

aaaacee.aa. 
.ea.aosoe.v 
o.o.caoe.oo 
• •oe.oae.o. 
.e.a.aaea.. 
oa.ooee.eeo 
coa».->o...o 
soaeo.oeo*. 



...oa.ea... 



o . a • a 



.a... 



749 
2,910 

3.9 
4.1 

4,176 
37,133 lbs. 

3.9 lbs. 
1.44 
2,742 

9,704 lbs. 
3.5 lbs. 
0.94 
102 
11 

30.6% * 
55.0%* 



* Includes only those cases where everyone in the party obtained 
a limit catch. 



- 37 - 

In numbers, the pickerel catch amounted to about three- 
quarters that of the pike, but these totalled only a little more than 
eight tons. Nevertheless, the average weight was substantial at 3 • 5 
pounds per pickerel. 

Speckled trout constituted only a very small portion of 
the catch, 102 fish in alio This was thought to be unusual as Lake 
Nipigon still produces good speckled trout fishing in season. It 
is assumed that most of the angling parties did not seek speckled 
trout as a primary target and that most of the ones taken were done 
so incidentally while fishing for pike or pickerel. 

Only eleven lake trout were captured in the six years 
covered by the creel data. This was expected as both angling and 
commercial fishing for this species has been extremely poor in 
recent years. 

The number of pike and pickerel taken per angler-day 
(Table 1) seems inordinately low upon first consideration. We must 
remember, however, that only one day's legal catch may be in posse- 
ssion of an angler, in this case six pike and six pickerel. There- 
fore while a legal limit of both is often obtained the first day, 
two or three more days are usually spent fishing for bigger fish. 
Quite often a number of the smaller fish are eaten or released, 
allowing the angler to fish until he again reaches his legal limit 

Angling Success by Year - (Table 2) 

The number of anglers fishing each year over the six-year 
period has remained fairly constant. The catches while fluctuating 
slightly from year to year show neither a general pattern of decline 
nor incline. In short, the fishery has remained relatively stable 
over the sampling periode The slight fluctuations observed in some 
cases in the catch can possibly be accounted for by other variables 
such as the number of anglers fishing and the number of days fished. 
It is not necessarily a reflection of the status of the fish popula- 
tions. 

TABLE 2 - A ngling Success by Year, Lake Nipigon, 1952-1957 . 






Number of Anglers 
Number of Angler-Days 
Number of Pike 
Total Weight of Pike 
Average Weight of Pike 
Pike Per Angler-Day 
Number of Pickerel 
Total Weight of Pickerel 
Average Weight of Pickerel 
Pickerel Per Angler-Day 
Number of Speckled Trout 
Number of Lake Trout 



1952 


1953 


1954 


1955 


1956 


1957 


131 


133 


119 


124 


133 


107 


485 


528 


480 


471 


509 


437 


688 


698 


638 


736 


764 


652 


6330 


5535 


5013 


7330 


7300 


562 5 


9.2 


7.9 


7o9 


10.0 


9.6 


8.6 


1.41 


1.32 


1,33 


1.56 


1.50 


1.49 


415 


502 


518 


471 


420 


416 


1465 


1930 


2081 


1405 


1328 


1495 


3.5 


3.8 


4o0 


3.0 


3.2 


3.6 


0.85 


0.95 


1.08 


1.00 


0.83 


0.95 


7 


2 


25 


26 


12 


30 


7 





3 








1 



- 3* - 

An interesting phenomenon appears in the data for the 
average weight of pickerel captured. A steady increase is noticed 
from 1952 (3.5 pounds) to 1953 (3.3 pounds) to 1954 (4.0 pounds). 
This quite possibly demonstrates a single dominant year class for 
this three year period that has the greatest frequency of occurrence 
in the angler's creel. A sharp average drop in weight is noted, 
from 4.0 pounds in 1954 to 3.0 pounds in 1955. Again following the 
years from 1955 through 1957 we notice a steady increase in the 
average weight of the pickerel, perhaps indicating another dominant 
year class for that period. 

In checking the average weights of the pike over the six- 
year period, there is no such indication of a dominant year class 
being involved. 

While the numbers of speckled trout seemed to have increa- 
sed in the creel returns for the last four years, they still form 
an insignificant portion of the catch. It is probably not an indi- 
cation that speckled trout are becoming more abundant in the lake, 
but rather shows the effect of the selectivity of the angler in his 
preference for certain fish species. 

Angling Success By Month 

According to Table 3> pike fishing remained at the same 
level during the five month period fished, with the exception of a 
small decline in July. September had a slight edge in the numbers 
of pike caught, but they averaged smaller than those in the four 
preceding months. 

TABLE 3 - Angling Success By Month, Lake Nipigon, 1952-1957 . 



Number of Anglers 
Number of Angler-Days 
Number of Pike 
Total Weight of Pike 
Average Weight of Pike 
Pike Per Angler-Day 
Number of Pickerel 
Total Weight of Pickerel 
Average Weight of Pickerel 
Pickerel Per Angler-Day 
Number of Speckled Trout 
Number of Lake Trout 



May 


June 


July 


Aug. 


Sept. 


75 


179 


160 


159 


174 


231 


699 


647 


622 


661 


412 


1009 


309 


922 


1024 


3740 


9245 


7143 


3130 


3325 


9.1 


9.2 


3.3 


3.9 


8.6 


1.47 


1 . 44 


1.25 


1.43 


1.55 


132 


379 


388 


737 


56 


504 


3195 


3305 


2503 


197 


3.8 


3.6 


3.7 


3.2 


3.5 


0.47 


1.26 


1.37 


1.27 


0.08 


IS 


73 


5 


1 


5 


2 


2 


2 





5 



Pickerel fishing was definitely at its best during June, 
July and August, dropping to an extreme low of 0.08 fish per 
angler-day in September. May was also a relatively poor month to 
catch pickerel. 



- 39 - 

It appears significant that 12% of all speckled trout 
taken were caught in June, This again is an indication of the 
selectivity of the angler, as late August and September are generally 
considered to be the best times to fish for speckled trout in Lake 
Nipigon, 

The lake trout data are too small to be of use in deter- 
mining the best month to fish for this species. 

Co nclusions 

Because of the nature of this sport fishery, it is diffi- 
cult to compare with other creel census reports. Number of fish 
per angler-day, a common means of comparison, means very little in 
the present study because each angler could only retain in his 
possession one legal day ? s limit but fished an average of nearly 
four days. Hence, quite often the last two or three days of the 
trip were spent in looking for larger fish, no record being kept of 
those eaten or released. This six-year study does, however, lead 
us to some definite conclusions. 

1. Both pike and pickerel fishing may be considered good, complete 
or near complete bag limits being taken in most cases. (This 
is, perhaps, a reflection on the quality of the guiding). 

2. The average weight of both the pike and the pickerel seems large, 
perhaps due to the release of the smaller ones in the search 

for trophy fish. 

3. Speckled trout formed an extremely small, and lake trout an 
insignificant portion of the catch, this possibly due to the 
preferences of the anglers. 

4. The angling harvest of both pike and pickerel has remained 
relatively stable over the six-year period. 

5. It is possible that two dominant year classes of pickerel 
constituted the bulk of the catch from 1952 to 1957. 

6. Pike harvest by angling remained at about the same level over 
each five month fishing period. Pickerel fishing was at its 
poorest during May and September. 

Acknowledgment s 

Without the conscientious efforts of the late Mr. Herb 
Goodman, these records would not be available. G. C. Armstrong 
District Biologist, initiated this study in 1952. 



- 40 - 



YELLOW PICKEREL TAGGING PROGRAMME, LAKE ERIE DISTRICT, 1957. 

by 

Je D, Roseborough 



On April 3rd, 4th and 5th District personnel along with 
personnel from Research Division carried out a tagging programme 
on the Thames River at Prairie Siding, $ miles from the mouth of 
the River. The following District personnel were engaged in the 
works 



0. L. Mellick 
T. A. Carter 



Eo A, Roberts 
D. Co Martin 



Ac Ho Mclntyre G. T. Greenwood 
J. D. Roseborough 



along with R. G. Ferguson and one assistant from Maple. 

Tagging and sampling equipment were supplied by Research 
including the tags. The following data were obtained for each fish 
tagged. 

1. Length (Total and fork length) 

2. Scales sample 

3. Tag number, location and date 

4. Remarks a) presence of Lymphocystes 

b) presence of Lamprey scars 

c) presence of bleeding at tag 

d) presence of damage or deformities 

e) appearance of fish (i.e. similar to Lake Huron or 

Lake Erie pickerel). 

The fish were obtained from the nets of commercial seine 
operators in the vicinity of Prairie Sidingo The operators are 
normally required to return pickerel caught in their hauls, but 
were kind enough to deposit all pickerel in live boxes at the fishery 
for the use of the tagging crews. Good cooperation was received 
from all seine fisheries approached for assistance (Ouellette, Crowe 
and Sullivan) . 

The tagging operation was organized expediently by the 
local Conservation Officers a short time before the pickerel run 
occurred. After three days, by which time 901 fish were tagged, 
the catch fell off and tagging was discontinued. It was recommended 
that future tagging be started immediately after the ice in the 
river had broken up, in order to obtain more fish in the same short 
interval. Of the 901 fish tagged, 89^ were yellow pickerel, two 
were sauger, and one was a northern pike. 



- u - 

Returns 

1. Returns of the tags by fishermen were recorded at District Office 
and at Maple, Tne attached map (s) of Lake St. Clair and Lake 
Huron indicate the location and date of recapture during April - 
December, 1956. The greatest percentage of these were returned 
to local Conservation Officers in the areas involved. A total 

of 63 tags have been returned to date. 

2. Of the 63 returns, 34 were made by anglers of which 28 were 
United States residents and six were local Ontario residents. 

Of the 29 returns made by commercial fishermen, 2/3 were in the 
vicinity of the Thames River Mouth, in the Thames River or in 
Lake St. Clair. 

These returns indicate the importance of the angler in reporting 
recaptures, and specifically the U. S. angler. Certainly the 
location of recaptures on the accompanying map would indicate 
much less if anglers 7 recaptures were not recorded. The most 
efficient means of reporting recaptures by U. S. anglers is 
required. 

3. About 10% (44) of 430 yellow and red plastic tags attached with 
monofilament nylon on the supra-occiptal bone of the head were 
returned. 

About 4% (19) of 470 monel metal ring tags attached to the 
mandible were returned. 

Comparison of plas ti c and .jaw tag re turns 



Total tagged 
Total returns 
Percent returns 
Commercial returns 
Angler returns 



Plastic 


Jaw 


430 


470 


44 


19 


10$ 


k$ 


24 


5 


20 


14 



It is believed that anglers generally examine their fish closely 
enough to perceive a jaw tag, and will return either type at the 
same rate. It appears that greater mortality may occur as a 
result of jaw tagging. It appears that only about l/3 of the 
jaw tagged recaptures might have been detected in the commercial 
catch. These returns indicate the desirability of using plastic 
tags in this work. Further returns of tags in seining in the 
Thames River should provide more information to indicate whether 
jaw tags cause greater mortality, (or whether jaw tagged fish 
are less likely to be taken in angling due to interference with 
the fishes* feeding, or some other factor). 



- 42 - 

4. Lymphocystes 

Seventy of 900 fish examined exhibited a skin disease on parts 
of their bodies which was recorded as Lymphocystes. Three of 
these fish subsequently recaptured were not reported to show 
this disease, although four fish which were not infected on 
tagging, were reported on recapture to have "sores" or "fungus" 
on tails and fins. It would appear therefore that this virus 
disease of the lymph glands is of a temporary nature <> 

5. Damage 

Two of the fish recaptured were bleeding as a result of tagging, 
but the returns did not indicate permanent damage. Only one 
return indicated flesh damage at the tag (plastic) attachment. 

6. Mov ements 

1) Tag returns indicate some fish moved up-river to Moraviantown 
until April 15th. One fish tagged on October 25, 1955 in 
Lake St, Clair a few miles north of the mouth by Ohio Taggers, 
was recaptured on March 29? 1956, at Moraviantown. 

2) April and May recaptures were made in Lake St. Clair close 

to the Thames River Mouth, with the exception of one taken by 
Purdy Fisheries in Lower Lake Huron. 

3) June recaptures were common in the St. Clair River and its 
lower branches, and one was taken at Blue Point in Lake Huron. 

4) July and August returns were scattered more widely with three 
recaptures near the Detroit River portion of Lake St. Clair. 
No recaptures were made in the Detroit River in spite of heavy 
angling pressure, indicating a definite up-stream movement. 

5) All other returns with the exception of one in October in 
Lake St. Clair and two in September in the St. Clair River, 
were in Lake Huron. 

6) Farthest returns (one positive, one tag lost) were in Saginaw 
Bay, some 175 water miles from the point of tagging. 

This preliminary tagging in the Thames River has provided some 
information on the movements of yellow pickerel which are 
believed by local fishermen to be residents of the Thames, 
Further tagging will be carried out during 1957? in the Thames 
River. The question whether Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, and Lake 
St, Clair fishes move up the Thames River will require tagging 
in those locations. 

In addition to the tagging operation itself, an attempt will be 
made to trace the fish in the Thames River from the point of 
tagging. 



- 43 - 
Map Showing Returns of Yellow Pickerel Tagged In Gran 
Thames River, April 3rd, 4th and 5th, 1956. Ber 

^8 9 Sept. 27 Oct.O 

^9\Sept. 



k Saginaw Bay 



LAKE HURON 



5 July O 
5 July O 



26 JuneS 



9 Au E .0 Vl^ 
©31 Dec. 



G2< 



rug. 



k 5 Sept. 56 
' 17 Aug. 56 
2 June 56 



20 July 56 



iO\13 July 56 



13 July 56 



13 June 
30 June 
6 July 
July 




12 Kay 



Apr. 13, 13, 16, 22, 

25, 27, 29, 29. 

May 2, 12, 12, IS. 



1 tag Apr. 12 Thames R. at Prairie Siding 

2 tags Apr. 14, 15 Thames R. Moraviantown 



B <H 
•H O 

En Js 



I LfN I CM | 
OJ 



| OJ | | rH "vj" OJ OJ CO | l>- O- MD | 
CO rH ro CM rH 



I r- I on 

C\J rH 



H 

OJ 



o 



I |f~>l I I HON I I O iH O I CM I CO | rO | | OW'sT | 
rH H rH <M 

rOCMVO O O O H CA'st-t--^\0 rO ■sj- f— ^ CO «?}- U"\CO OJ O ON -J" O 

OJ CO "vj- "Sd" f\ ON COrHOJ rHrOCOVO^JOf-OJVOrOrOU^ONOJOJ 

rH rH rH OJ 



CO 



NO 
rH 



u 

•H 
CO 



| NO LfN «vl" 
r", C— «=t 
ON ON rH 



| CAH OdCO H -xf 

ONCO rH "vtNO m 

O rH rH rH 
OJ 



|f~0-vf|rOC\j[>-rHONOJ(Ht— ON CO 

O ir\ ^twoNHCvjvoiAmh- r— 

POCO r-l rH rH rHrH r— 

rO LfN -^j" 



ltn 



co 

fH 
O 

H 

CO 
H 

EH 

W 

S 

< 



< 
o 



Eh 

o 

>H 

PQ 

CO 

P 

Eh 



P 
O 

>H 



P 

CO 



I rH 



CO 

UTN 

I 



rH 
I 

Eh 

9 

o 

CO 



Eh 

W 

fH 
O 
M 

Ph 
Eh 
CO 
M 
R 



O 

P4 

Pi 

F-- 

,-h 

H 
Ph 

a 
o 

o 



O 



LfN 




ON 




rH 






(H 


^ 


CD 


P") 


+=> 


>H 


o 


Ph 


1 


o 


u 


PH 


CQ 



+» 

Jh 






& 



rH M 
O O 

O Ph 



H 


O 


-5 


Ph 


t 




,d 




CO 




•H 




pH 




P 


-P 


c 


crj 


pq o 


, 


rj 


> 


"o 


cd 


-P 


OJ 


crj 


pq 


O 


«H 


• 





R 


9 


a3 


O 


u 


£h Eh 



o 

OJ 



I I I 



OCO H NO LfN C— 
rH r~0 C— L'N 
ONCO 



rO O- -^ CM 

Hrir^iri 



OJ 



I I rH rH I 



! I I I I I 



ONCOO^rOCM^. | | |CO 
OJ r>i>r>H CM ^ ON 

rH ON CO CM NO <~o 

rH "si" iH 



I OJ | t— I 



ON 
"=H- 



oo c- no co r— c~ co 

H LOO H inoj "vj- 

rH rH CM ^t rH «~0 CM 



I HVOONC-C\Oa\t--WLOrOir 1 LOONrO 
OJ CNJ LfN CO O CM f- rO -rj- CO CO rH rH rH f— 
ririWOrir>HHH CM rH iH rH 

CM rH 



NO CO "H; UNIA LOV.O HOr>mHr~C\lHHCOHCNW^(MCOOD'^ 
rH C— CO ON t>- rO LfN ON CM NO r>CO fOHVQr<~lC\lHV£)CO\DLnHO\^" 
OJ t— O C- ON f- CO rH LfNrOCMCO C— <"•"> V3 O ^f-^O H H f-^CO On 
rH CM CO "vt" rH NO CM rO C J O -vf O NO VO. O LTN cO NO rH iH rH O OJ OJ 
rO rH rH LfN OJ rO rHOJrHOJ rH ^, u 



CO iH rO LfN rH CO l> LfN "^r NO LTNON1>-COCONOCOCO CM NO P- NO LfN NO 
r-l O- O O ON CO LfN rH On LTN rO NO ON CM rO rH <3" rH LfN CO NO LfN CM O O 

VJCOrOOt^^^-CO^'^OJ'sfL.'N-sJ-WOrOOVOH^-tNJHLOON 
CM H rH "vf HHHHCMVOCM^tH r-i OJrHrH 



r-l CO 
rH 



ONCO CO ON rO CO |CO | | lON'^-CMLfNrO'v.r-^j-voONrHCMCO | f- 
iHrHNOONNOO ON HfO'^ONH^lOCMCTNHH'sr r-O 

rOVO f-rOL f N rH rH rH •<•- OJ LTN 



L<"N LfN CO ON NO NO I On I I 
CD OJ O OJ 



I | ir\ | M-vo in | O CM O O m | co 

rO LfN ^ NO OJ H H UN rH 

•<" rH 



rOrO^<J;mcoO'JNinCOcoOf>HrnOHOOrOrOWHr>OJ 
rH rOrH H C\C\I O O CO rO ri r^ N f- CM CN NO rHrHrH 

rO CO rH rH rH 



i i i i I i i i I i i I I i ^<ri ih i 

CM O 



I I I CM | I | 



NO OJ CO CM ON r-l I OJ 

ON NO vo On r-n NO *vi- 

rH rH rH OJ OJ 



f I I r- LTN Kl'H/LOIMr-COHWLO 00 rn c-~ 
On O r>- U"N rO CNI OJ O rO LTN OJ "^ rH CO 
rHrH H CM CM H rHrH 



J I CTN I I I I I I I I I I 



I OJ | OJ I O ] CM rO J | H 

r-l 



H f>rnr>'j)COCO O P-'cJ-OO O ONCM Ocf-HOOOCMAlfNCO O\0 
H H CJ ^ LT\03 CM H "H^COCOrOONCONOVO^trHrHrOONONOCM 

f^ONO C—^t—NOCOO ^CMONO^ctONrHNOONVOONCMOrHCO 

rHrOONNOrHCO ^" H IT, LOCO OM^Of^VO CJ H r>mr-C\l 

rH 



Ni-UNC3 O O CM O H W H;vO -^CM LOLOOO ^ -vf H O ■sTLfN-vl-CO O 

COr^CMC-OrHCACMaDC^COOvOONr^LTNON-^OCMONONOCOON 

rH OJ rH rH CM VO LfN NO r>rOV3 H LTN NO rOCINH CM CM H CM ^f 




H 



Pj O PJ 

Hi 



•Pi 

s o 

o o 

PS 

S CO 

H 

r^ r-l 



E-< 

Pi 

§!^ 

C <ij 

mm h 

C5 

cdWtHH 

Eh p 



Eh Eh 
CO CO 



> 



<3? 



B5P g 



PI 

H 
1 



f:S 



R 



oi (d 



H rH 

O CO O ««! 

HHg 

ed « rq eh 

c_i c_j *•-■? rH 



P3 O 
£h O 
CO t-q 



H O «^ 
^ jsj ex, Cl, 



Eh Eh 



r^ 



>H d 

Pj H 

& Eh 

P=l CO 



PhPhPmPmCOCOCOCO 



pi 

i 

IH 
Ph 

r-q 

Eh 
fH 



On 
iH 
O 
CM 



NO 
ON 
LTN 
ON 



ON 
OJ 



CO 
c^- 

LON 
NO 

"'Hr 



CM 



LfN 



NO 

CO 

ON 

VO 

CM 
rH 



ON 
rH 
LfN 
CO 



t— 


5" 


rO 


CO 


CO 


"vf 


rH 


CN 


, ^- 


«=t 


f- 


rH 


o 


NO 


r— 


o 


LfN 


NO 


ON 


rO 


r- 


O 


o 


rH 


rH 


rH 


rH 




rO 




O 




CM 




CO 




CM 




H 




r~ 


rO 


rO 


c~- 



rO 



rO 
O 

rH 




i